- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,453
- 19,913
- 146
Another editorial writen by a close friend of mine:
Torching the Bill of Rights
David Hunt
Seeing an American flag being burned or otherwise desecrated deeply offends me. Yet I also believe that such actions should be as protected a form of free expression as is writing a letter to the editor. As upheld in previous Supreme Court rulings, it boils down to a freedom of speech issue, but my desire to see flag burning protected as a form of expression goes far deeper
than my concern for the First Amendment.
Flag burning may indeed be offensive, but does it communicate something? Yes, it does. It communicates disrespect, condemnation, hatred, or even great frustration. Thus it is protected expression whether or not we agree with the method. Still, there are many who would like to see a Constitutional amendment to forbid desecration of the American flag. But, while the sentiments of those who support that limitation are understandable, they are dangerous in the extreme. The most obvious question is "What is desecration?" Is it flying a flag improperly, or clothing made with Old Glory's pattern?
Desecration is a terrifyingly broad term that threatens to snare even the patriotic. But the danger of prohibiting flag desecration extends not just to the slippery slope concern with respect to free speech, but also to all rights.
Are rights inherent or granted? Whether founded in a higher power or simply springing from being human, almost all agree that rights are inherent. Being born gives you the right to free speech, the right to assemble and the right of self-defense, among others. And while governments conspire to limit and eliminate the legal exercise of those rights, they exist regardless of the law of the land.
Does anyone believe that if guns are illegal, that if the Second Amendment is somehow repealed, that people will lose the right to own a firearm?
Regardless of the legality, regardless of what the Constitution is amended to read, does their right to keep and bear arms for defense exist? If it still does, then every person who wants to keep gun ownership legal as intended under the Constitution should call, write, or fax their Senators and state legislators to oppose the flag desecration amendment.
What affects one right affects them all. Gun rights advocates worry about the infamous "nose of the camel." The flag desecration amendment is the nose of a very dangerous camel, maybe the most dangerous one of all, eclipsing the threat of licensing and registration of firearms. If passed, the flag desecration amendment sets the precedent that a sufficient number of people working together can limit - or eliminate - a right. What right would be next? In the name of "safety" and "convenience for law enforcement" would the Fourth Amendment go? It's already in critical condition, thanks to the War on Drugs. What about the Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and double jeopardy - both under strong attack in England with echoes being heard in the United States? How about the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth, or the right to a jury trial under the Seventh?
The O.J. Simpson fiasco triggered calls that ranged from limiting juries to eliminating them altogether in favor of a panel of sitting judges.
True Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Banning flag burning, even though so many find it disgusting and reprehensible, threatens every right. People who love Liberty must fight their understandable recoil from flag burning to oppose the flag desecration amendment. If enacted, it sets the groundwork for the destruction of the entire Bill of Rights, because enacting this amendment says that it's OK to restrict freedom because enough people got together and said we should.
Given that precedent, is ANY right safe?
Torching the Bill of Rights
David Hunt
Seeing an American flag being burned or otherwise desecrated deeply offends me. Yet I also believe that such actions should be as protected a form of free expression as is writing a letter to the editor. As upheld in previous Supreme Court rulings, it boils down to a freedom of speech issue, but my desire to see flag burning protected as a form of expression goes far deeper
than my concern for the First Amendment.
Flag burning may indeed be offensive, but does it communicate something? Yes, it does. It communicates disrespect, condemnation, hatred, or even great frustration. Thus it is protected expression whether or not we agree with the method. Still, there are many who would like to see a Constitutional amendment to forbid desecration of the American flag. But, while the sentiments of those who support that limitation are understandable, they are dangerous in the extreme. The most obvious question is "What is desecration?" Is it flying a flag improperly, or clothing made with Old Glory's pattern?
Desecration is a terrifyingly broad term that threatens to snare even the patriotic. But the danger of prohibiting flag desecration extends not just to the slippery slope concern with respect to free speech, but also to all rights.
Are rights inherent or granted? Whether founded in a higher power or simply springing from being human, almost all agree that rights are inherent. Being born gives you the right to free speech, the right to assemble and the right of self-defense, among others. And while governments conspire to limit and eliminate the legal exercise of those rights, they exist regardless of the law of the land.
Does anyone believe that if guns are illegal, that if the Second Amendment is somehow repealed, that people will lose the right to own a firearm?
Regardless of the legality, regardless of what the Constitution is amended to read, does their right to keep and bear arms for defense exist? If it still does, then every person who wants to keep gun ownership legal as intended under the Constitution should call, write, or fax their Senators and state legislators to oppose the flag desecration amendment.
What affects one right affects them all. Gun rights advocates worry about the infamous "nose of the camel." The flag desecration amendment is the nose of a very dangerous camel, maybe the most dangerous one of all, eclipsing the threat of licensing and registration of firearms. If passed, the flag desecration amendment sets the precedent that a sufficient number of people working together can limit - or eliminate - a right. What right would be next? In the name of "safety" and "convenience for law enforcement" would the Fourth Amendment go? It's already in critical condition, thanks to the War on Drugs. What about the Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and double jeopardy - both under strong attack in England with echoes being heard in the United States? How about the right to a speedy trial under the Sixth, or the right to a jury trial under the Seventh?
The O.J. Simpson fiasco triggered calls that ranged from limiting juries to eliminating them altogether in favor of a panel of sitting judges.
True Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. Banning flag burning, even though so many find it disgusting and reprehensible, threatens every right. People who love Liberty must fight their understandable recoil from flag burning to oppose the flag desecration amendment. If enacted, it sets the groundwork for the destruction of the entire Bill of Rights, because enacting this amendment says that it's OK to restrict freedom because enough people got together and said we should.
Given that precedent, is ANY right safe?
Facebook
Twitter